United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division
GLEN E. CONRAD, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Hagee, Michelle Haney, and Jeremy Lang filed this action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. §§ 201-219, against their former employer,
Capital Tacos, Inc. ("Capital Tacos"). Capital
Tacos has moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For
the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part
and denied in part.
following factual allegations, taken from the plaintiffs'
amended complaint, are accepted as true for purposes of the
pending motion. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) ("[W]hen ruling on a defendant's motion to
dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual
allegations contained in the complaint.").
Tacos operates a restaurant known as "Fuzzy's Taco
Shop" in Charlottesville, Virginia. Hagee, Haney, and
Lang worked at the restaurant from May 2, 2017 until mid-June
of 2017. They initially received an hourly wage of $8.00,
along with a share of the tips left by customers each day.
Capital Tacos eventually increased their pay to $9.00 per
about May 2, 2017, the plaintiffs worked "long
hours" as part of a "week-long
'orientation.'" Am. Compl. ¶ 12, Docket No.
16. Haney and Lang ultimately worked "in excess of 60
hours" that week. Id. However, Capital Tacos
"only credited [them] with fourteen (14) hours" and
therefore failed to adequately pay them for the time that
they actually worked. Id.
the orientation period, the plaintiffs "regularly and
routinely worked more than forty (40) hours in a week,
without overtime pay." Id. ¶ 13. More
specifically, each of the plaintiffs typically worked
"between fifty (50) and sixty (60) hours each
week." Id. On or about June 8, 2017, Haney
expressed concern to Lang regarding her paycheck. Haney
noticed that she had not been compensated for a particular
shift, and that she had not received any overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week during the pay
period ending on May 20, 2017. After speaking with Haney,
Lang noticed that he had not been compensated for overtime
work performed during the same pay period.
about June 9, 2017, Lang approached the
"owner/manager" of the restaurant, Pranav Shah, and
"asked for a copy of a labor report." Id.
¶¶ 7, 16. Shah refused to provide the report, and
advised Lang that his employment would be terminated if he
insisted on obtaining it. Lang did not appear for his
assigned shift the following day and was subsequently
returned to work on June 10, 2017. Upon her arrival, Shah
informed Haney that she was being terminated. "When
Haney asked why she was being terminated, [Shah] stated a
number of reasons, before admitting that Haney was terminated
out of concern that she would exercise her statutory rights
under the FLSA and Virginia law." Id. ¶
same day, after discovering a problem with her own pay check
and learning that her coworkers' checks were purportedly
incorrect, Hagee approached Shah and requested a copy of her
labor report. Hagee informed Shah that she intended to
consult an attorney regarding her rights under the FLSA, and
that she refused to return to work until she was paid all of
the wages and overtime pay that she was due.
11, 2017, an officer with the Albemarle County Police
Department delivered a notice of termination of employment to
Lang and Haney. The officer advised Lang and Haney that they
would be arrested for trespassing if they returned to the
Haney, and Lang filed this action against Capital Tacos on
October 25, 2017. In Count One of their original complaint,
the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant violated the FLS A
"by failing to compensate [them] at the required
overtime rate." Compl. ¶ 28, Docket No. 1. In Count
Two, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant violated the
FLS A "by failing to compensate, [them] for all of the
time that they worked at the appropriate wage."
Id. ¶ 33. In Count Three, the plaintiffs
claimed that the defendant violated the FLSA "by
terminating . . . Lang and Haney for exercising their
statutory rights." Id. ¶ 38.
Tacos moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The
plaintiffs opposed the motion and, alternatively, requested
leave to amend the complaint. By memorandum opinion and order
entered January 29, 2018, the court granted Capital
Tacos' motion, dismissed the original ...